On Twitter, the reaction was less measured and articulate.
When Doris Burke trended during the NBA Finals, it was due to 2 groups of
people. There were those who wrote hateful, disgusting things about her looks –
none of which I will link to here – and there were those who wrote about her
attractiveness in aggressive terms – I ain’t linking to those either.

It properly summed up the female experience in the sports
media – you will inevitably be judged on your looks.

But looks only get you so far. When you think about the
females in sports that have had long, prosperous careers, it is the substance
that drove them. Even though Joe Namath made her a punch line, it is Suzy
Kolber’s skills that have kept her at the forefront of ESPN’s Monday Night
Football coverage. While Dennis
Miller loves Lesley Visser, it is her command of the microphone that has
kept her a viable commodity for decades. Linda Cohn went on a date with a
Deadspin editor, but that’s not why she’s one of ESPN’s most valued
SportsCenter anchors.

Doris Burke, like those women mentioned above, will work in
basketball as long as she wants to because she has the talents. She knows the
game. She explains it well. She asks the right questions.

Substance always trumps style.

No one has learned that lesson harder than Erin Andrews, who
should probably write the aforementioned Deadspin a royalty check every month.

The rise of Erin
Andrews coincided with the rise of Deadspin – among other TMZ-like websites
– that brought a different spin to the sports world. While 80 percent of
Deadspin staff and readers will disagree, it is pictures of women that first
brought the site readers. It evolved and has produced compelling, fascinating
coverage – the saga of Manti
T’eo clearly jumps to mind – but it grew thanks to the page view culture we
live in.

At the forefront of this was Erin Andrews. An attractive,
tall blonde with a killer smile, there was no mistaking that she was going to
become a pet project at ESPN. Thanks to her coverage of college basketball and
college football – and all the young, unadulterated testosterone that
surrounded her – her aura grew.

Her celebrity took a huge leap forward when another Disney
property, Dancing with the Stars, put her on the show and introduced her to a
wider audience. It was not just the horny sports fan who was now into Erin
Andrews, it was the male (and female) population at large. It took an ugly turn
with the peephole incident but there was no mistaking the fact that Erin
Andrews had crossed over from “well-known sideline reporter” to “emerging
celebrity.”

There was just one problem – she didn’t have the talent to
back it up.

I never paid too much attention to her skills as a sideline
reporter because, for the most part, I find sideline reporters to be completely
and totally useless, especially in football. They do some “fun” features to
kill time. They relay information that anyone else in the world could. They do
quick, no substance interviews at halftime. With the exception of the on-field
postgame interview, which is usually all “We played hard” fluff, there is
little value a sideline reporter can provide.

But then I watched Erin Andrews host College Football Live
on a random weekday afternoon. Perhaps it is unfair, perhaps it is harsh,
perhaps it was her first time hosting the show – but she was awful. After
watching pros like Chris Fowler, Rece Davis and Joe Tessitore host the daily
show with the ease of putting on a left sneaker, the lack of polish from
Andrews was startling.

This is not to disparage Andrews – I highly doubt I have the
skills to host a college football television show, though I would love the
opportunity.

The higher ups at ESPN, I have to believe, knew deep down
that Andrews was never going to rise above sideline reporter. That’s not an
indictment – Lesley Visser has had one helluva career doing just that. But that
wasn’t where Andrews thought she should be, that wasn’t where her celebrity
level would allow her to be and that’s not where her pay grade would accept for
her to be.

Fox took a chance. They hired Andrews and made her the face
of their new college football pregame and postgame shows as the network jumped
into the regular season college football fray.

They did no favors by saddling Andrews with Eddie George and
Joey Harrington – two other unproven, if popular, former superstars. There is
likely enough blame to go around for all three. The fact, however, remains
unchanged.

The studio
show sucked. It was unwatchable. It was uncomfortable. I had discussions
with friends, coworkers and family about how bad it sucked. “How long could you
stand it?” “Isn’t it the worst?” “What was Fox thinking?”

It was the equivalent of pulling back the curtain and
revealing the secret – Erin Andrews is extremely pretty. And that may be it.

It is remarkable to see how far she has fallen in such a
short timeframe. Just a couple of years ago, she was arguably the most
recognizable female face in sports – athlete or otherwise. She was everywhere.
ESPN promoted the heck out of her. Deadspin and the like posted seemingly daily
updates with new pictures, new anecdotes and new rumors about her love life.

People cared then. People do not care now.

The rumors are already flying that Fox
will dramatically revamp their college football studio team for the
upcoming season, though how it affects Andrews is still up for discussion. Fox
has invested (I would assume) a lot of money and effort into grooming her into
a star. Maybe there is more to her hosting skills than I am giving her credit
for. Maybe she has a future as a host.

More likely, she will return to the sidelines and resume her
previous, successful role as in-game reporter. It will feel like a demotion,
both to her and the public at large. But it is inevitable.

No one should feel bad for Erin Andrews – she has made a
tremendous amount of money, received a tremendous amount of coverage and has
created a tremendous amount of buzz.

We are an increasingly superficial society. It has not
changed our fundamental need to be entertained.

Let me guess the above comment is written by a man that can't make it in the business! To be fair it is written in same style of a person who has lots of accounts that is used to send to FOX etc to try to ruin Ms. Andrews!(Except on tweeter the comments get vulgar as the day turns into night) If a woman maybe she couldn't make it in sports field. Looks may get your foot in door;but stay in the business 14 years shows she has talent! From accounts of people that have worked with her she is highly respected in the field of sports reporting!

I will disagree with you completely about Erin Andrews! We have watched her from early days before ESPN! She is an excellent side line reporter but also a good studio host! We expect her to be even better now the show won't start after MLB which cut into their time. In fact as the season went on the whole crew grew stronger! We don't know Who you are but it sounded like you don't like her no matter what she does! Erin comes prepared no matter what the assignment plus she is funny! Most of the time when men start in about be no good they know she knows more about sports!Egos can't take it so lets run down pretty girl! 1.8 million of us will watch whatever she does as we know just like Fox knows she has what it takes for staying power!

I totally agree with you. I think I watched her for like two minutes on that Fox Sports show and then turned the channel. Her voice is annoying. She doesn't have the substance of a Lesley Visser or Suzy Kolber. They are way above her in terms of talent. Even the commercials that Erin Andrews does leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth. She is not talented. The same can be said for the other one that left ESPN for CNN/TBS...Rachel Nichols. I believe Nichols is by far the worst of the two but that isn't saying much.

1. Your title was misleading, in implying that Andrews had substance;2. You triangulated at the beginning, by using the feminist slogan, “objectified”;3. If you were honest, you would admit that most females in TV sports benefit from being females, but instead you act as if they were victims; and4. You wasted 1,145 words and readers’ time on a dishonest treatment of a dumb subject.